I look for decisions that remain sensible across conditions, commitments that depend on a specific assumption and signals that should trigger a review.
The aim is not to predict one correct future. It is to make the organisation's exposure and options understandable. That supports staged commitments and a clearer account of what management needs to learn.
Scenario work often disappoints because it is commissioned as an intellectual exercise and presented as an appendix. A team develops vivid narratives about the future, leaders find them stimulating and the planning process then proceeds on the base case as before. The scenarios are not wrong; they are simply disconnected from any commitment. Leaders also tend to treat the most familiar scenario as the likely one, which quietly turns a tool for exploring uncertainty into a justification for the plan they already preferred.
I begin scenario work with the leadership team's actual agenda: the significant decisions it expects to make over the planning horizon. We then identify the few uncertainties that would most change those decisions, and build scenarios around them rather than around general trends. Each decision is tested against each scenario and classified as robust, contingent or exposed. Contingent decisions receive explicit signposts, the observable developments that would tell us which way to move, and an owner responsible for watching them between reviews.
Consider an enterprise weighing a major investment in new production capacity whose value depends on how quickly customers adopt a new technology. Under rapid adoption the investment is essential; under slow adoption it becomes a costly burden. Rather than debating which future is more likely, the leadership team might commit to a smaller first phase, secure options on land or equipment for later expansion and identify the market signals that would justify the next step. The scenarios have shaped the structure of the commitment rather than predicting its outcome.
A frequent criticism is that scenarios multiply complexity and give leaders an excuse to delay. If every decision is contingent, nothing gets done. I address this by keeping the set of scenarios small and by insisting that some decisions be identified as robust and taken promptly. Staging is itself a decision, with costs that should be stated openly. The purpose of the exercise is to commit with clearer eyes, not to postpone commitment until uncertainty disappears, which in my experience it rarely does of its own accord.
This asks the leadership team to discuss uncertainty openly, including the possibility that a cherished plan rests on an assumption that may not hold. It asks the strategy function to monitor signposts between planning cycles and to raise a flag when one moves, even if the news is unwelcome. For the board, it means asking management which commitments are contingent and on what, and expecting to hear when a signpost has changed. Over time that turns scenarios from a planning event into a continuing management discipline.
Scenarios earn their place when leaders can point to a decision they would make differently in each one. Without that link they become interesting stories. With it, they become a practical guide to what to commit now, what to stage and what signals the organisation should watch most closely.